The price of crude oil is the highest it's ever been and the forecourt shows this with petrol and deisel being the highest price ever.

It costs more now than when it did 5 yrs ago and the petrol station blockades happened in protest of the high prices.

The government tax the cost of fuel by 80%, with peterol companies only making 1p or 2p per litre.
We pay the highest amount in the WORLD for fuel with the taxes our government impose... isn't it about time we as a nation stood together and did something about this?

Discuss...

What can you do ?

You have to buy the stuff, it's not like you can change your car to run on something else (well, you can but not oevernight).

No... it takes 5 days to run on LPG :P
What can we do? Lets have the blockades back for a start... it's seriously taking the **** don't you reckon?

How much did blair spend on sending us to war? That money could have been used elsewhere!

I agree. Why not start using your car less and start walking more? Or by a bike. Both provide healthy exercise and there is less pollution. Or try public transport.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
isn't it about time we as a nation stood together and did something about this?

Yes, all bought bikes and used public transport.

We could always invade some more countries and take their oil off them perhaps?

But surely our wonderful Government would not decrease the taxes they impose to actually benefit the loyal subjects.

"C'mon, squeeze a bit tighter" :gag:

Originally posted by Snook
Yes, all bought bikes and used public transport.
So you're happy paying for it via public transport then?
The issue not about polution ... the issue is that we're paying a hell of a lot more in the UK for our fuel than the rest of the world.

Why?

It's not to get people to use public transport or bikes more that's for sure.
So lets focus on the issue at hand!

Originally posted by DaBouncer
So you're happy paying for it via public transport then?
The issue not about polution ... the issue is that we're paying a hell of a lot more in the UK for our fuel than the rest of the world.

Why?

It's not to get people to use public transport or bikes more that's for sure.
So lets focus on the issue at hand!

This one has really got you DaB :o

I think you have a valid point though buddy :thumbsup:

Originally posted by DaBouncer
What can we do? Lets have the blockades back for a start... it's seriously taking the **** don't you reckon?


All that will do is cause a panic, everyone will buy all the available petrol and then when it runs out everyone (including fire engines and ambulances) will be stranded, just like last time.

Originally posted by venger
This one has really got you DaB :o

I think you have a valid point though buddy :thumbsup:
It does **** me off that teh government think it's alright to rip off it's public. We are the only nation to be taken the **** out of in this way.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
So you're happy paying for it via public transport then?
The issue not about polution ... the issue is that we're paying a hell of a lot more in the UK for our fuel than the rest of the world.

Why?

It's not to get people to use public transport or bikes more that's for sure.
So lets focus on the issue at hand!

That is the issue. One reason they tax petrol so highly is to try and stop people using their cars so much. It is about pollution and about trying to get people onto public transport. It's a stupid way of doing it though. They should at least take a huge portion of the tax money and spend it on a good integrated public transport system.

Originally posted by nick2
All that will do is cause a panic, everyone will buy all the available petrol and then when it runs out everyone (including fire engines and ambulances) will be stranded, just like last time.
Well if that's what it takes... that's what it takes!

Even without tax there are problems.
Farming Today this morning was reporting how the price of 'red diesel' had risen 30% in the last 4 months!
This is forcing some farm contractors to the wall and demonstrations are not unlikely.

Originally posted by Snook
That is the issue. One reason they tax petrol so highly is to try and stop people using their cars so much. It is about pollution and about trying to get people onto public transport. It's a stupid way of doing it though. They should at least take a huge portion of the tax money and spend it on a good integrated public transport system.
But that's not true... if it was then that is what they'd use the money for.
The government don't use the money in this way nor have they stated that this is the reason for high taxation of fuel.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Well if that's what it takes... that's what it takes!

But all that will accomplish is that everyone will be stranded with no transport, including freight companies and other bussinesses that rely on petrol.

It might not affect the average car driver that much, but if you run a fereight company you could go bankrupt in a week.

Originally posted by Snook
That is the issue. One reason they tax petrol so highly is to try and stop people using their cars so much.

Surely you do not actually believe that propoganda?

Originally posted by DaBouncer
But that's not true... if it was then that is what they'd use the money for.
The government don't use the money in this way nor have they stated that this is the reason for high taxation of fuel.

I think it at least makes us a little more responsible in this country than others. In America people leave their engine running while doing their shopping, or run the engine for half an hour in winter before they set of for work to warm up the car. Oil isn't something we will always have, and it's good that we have to think about how much we use it.

The only problem I have with the high price, is that public transport is getting so poor that it will soon not be an option to people, which then makes fuel a necessity and the price unrealistic.

Originally posted by venger
Surely you do not actually believe that propoganda?
Maybe not, but it'd be nice if it worked... which it never will.

Originally posted by Snook

The only problem I have with the high price, is that public transport is getting so poor that it will soon not be an option to people, which then makes fuel a necessity and the price unrealistic.

Would you care to explain that one please ?

I just don't understand that comment



:confused:

Originally posted by venger
Would you care to explain that one please ?

I just don't understand that comment



:confused:

If we have a good public transport system in affordable trains and buses, then people don't need to drive, and having a car is a luxury and not a necessity.

If public transport gets so bad that people can not easily get about (to work, for instance) then having a car becomes more of a necessity than a luxury... see?

If a car is a luxury, then I see no problem with high fuel prices because it is an environmentally unfriendly luxury, but if people NEED a car then fuel prices should be more sympathetic.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
It does **** me off that teh government think it's alright to rip off it's public. We are the only nation to be taken the **** out of in this way.

Would DaBouncer care to point out to me which political party in this general election is proposing a reduction in fuel duty?

And would DaBouncer also like to point out to me what taxes would increase as a result of the lost income from fuel duty? Maybe a whacking great increase slapped on new cars would make up the difference? Or how about increasing the VAT charge on all goods and services to 25%? Or does DaBouncer have some better ideas how to make up the difference?

The current rise in forecourt prices is not the result of an increase in fuel duty - it's due to market forces. At least the Chancellor scrapped the fuel duty escalator (introduced by the Tories).

Its a good thing for me- my job relates directly to the oil and gas industry and they are taking shed loads of stock off me :D

Originally posted by Snook
If we have a good public transport system in affordable trains and buses, then people don't need to drive, and having a car is a luxury and not a necessity.

If public transport gets so bad that people can not easily get about (to work, for instance) then having a car becomes more of a necessity than a luxury... see?

If a car is a luxury, then I see no problem with high fuel prices because it is an environmentally unfriendly luxury, but if people NEED a car then fuel prices should be more sympathetic.
Just because a car is not currently a necessity (in some areas) doesn't make it right for the government to tax it's public unfairly.

I mean come on 80% of the price we pay is going to the government... for what? Where are our public improvements?
FFS the roads in sheffield alone are all pot holes and nasty so they're not spending it their. First Mainline is the biggest rip of merchant on the streets so it's not being spent there... where is it going?

I'm sorry but it's about time the government realised that they've taken the **** out of us for too long and we wont stand for it.

Originally posted by Snook
If we have a good public transport system in affordable trains and buses, then people don't need to drive, and having a car is a luxury and not a necessity.

If public transport gets so bad that people can not easily get about (to work, for instance) then having a car becomes more of a necessity than a luxury... see?

If a car is a luxury, then I see no problem with high fuel prices because it is an environmentally unfriendly luxury, but if people NEED a car then fuel prices should be more sympathetic.

In a perfect world perhaps :(

But I cannot think of any public transport system that is not privatised and non-profit based.

Originally posted by DaBouncer

I'm sorry but it's about time the government realised that they've taken the **** out of us for too long and we wont stand for it.

Thats all that has EVER happened in this country.

By protesting, you might cause a couple of ripples in the pond, but that is all.

On the grand scheme of things, our lives are very comfortable and the Government know it.

Originally posted by redrobbo
Would DaBouncer care to point out to me which political party in this general election is proposing a reduction in fuel duty?
Did I state any polictical party had proposed a reduction in fuel duty? you obviously misread my post if you think this is so.

Originally posted by redrobbo
And would DaBouncer also like to point out to me what taxes would increase as a result of the lost income from fuel duty? Maybe a whacking great increase slapped on new cars would make up the difference? Or how about increasing the VAT charge on all goods and services to 25%? Or does DaBouncer have some better ideas how to make up the difference?
What are the government doing with this tax that already comes from fuel? They tax fuel heavily and for what? Where is it going? NHS? Well I'd happily subscribe to an insurance policy to cover my medical bills if that would be the result of cutting fuel tax.

Originally posted by redrobbo
The current rise in forecourt prices is not the result of an increase in fuel duty - it's due to market forces. At least the Chancellor scrapped the fuel duty escalator (introduced by the Tories).
It may be due to market forces, but ti wouldn't be so significant if the government weren't taxing us so heavily (more than any other country in the world). How do other countries function there economy? Obviously our government must be doing something wrong.

No matter which way you dress it up... they're taking the ****!

The oil price is increasing because of increasing consumption by the booming economies in India and China. For the same reason the price of steel has shot up because of the amount of construction going on.

I for one like a high oil price since I work in the industry. There must be others in Sheffield who are enjoying the high steel price. :)

Originally posted by venger
In a perfect world perhaps :(

But I cannot think of any public transport system that is not privatised and non-profit based.

Well yeah, that's the trouble... and thats why we're all off to hell in a handbasket... thanks to dear old Maggie.

Originally posted by PottShrigley
The oil price is increasing because of increasing consumption by the booming economies in India and China. For the same reason the price of steel has shot up because of the amount of construction going on.

I for one like a high oil price since I work in the industry. There must be others in Sheffield who are enjoying the high steel price. :)
Yeah I know the reason for the recent increases (china being the main one) but that doesn't excuse the government's taxation.

If the government taxed for example 40% instead of 80% then these increases wouldn't bother the average motorist, haulage company, public transport company so much.
We pay a heck of a lot more in tax than all ther countries... it's about time the government answered to this.

I have posted on here months ago about the biofuel you can
buy.

No its no the one the goverment want you to use, that still has stuff in it that harms the atmosphere. Biofuel is made from vegetable oil, does not have any ommisisions and does not pollute.

It cost 70p a litre and do you know you don`t have to change your car to use it. You have to have a diesel car but thats all.
The govement don`t want this fuel there is no profit, yet they want a greener atmosphere.

The person who makes this fuel is about to go out of business, why? He invested his time, money and brains into a project he though people would want. But people want to pay 80-90p a litre.

Because people don`t believe in it, he can`t fund it in large quantities so big firms are intrested because he can`t supply them.

In Wales is sells so well in fact the business is worth millions, a new plant is opening in Scotland this year.

For you to change the way petrol companies nake money you have to take a steep into the unknown, the product he had was that step, but not enough wanted to take the step and try it

which is it, does he make millions or is he about to go bust?

He does not make millions, but I am not going to argue with you about this. He is not the one in Wales making it.

Why ?

Because this is something I do know about and you probably don`t.

So lets keep to the topic please

Originally posted by cgksheff
Even without tax there are problems.
Farming Today this morning was reporting how the price of 'red diesel' had risen 30% in the last 4 months!
This is forcing some farm contractors to the wall and demonstrations are not unlikely.

Hmm. Red diesel costs 24p a litre, so my heart is not exactly bleeding for the farmers - many of whom, I would imagine, are protesting against the same government that grants them huge subsidies to prop up unsustainable business models.

Originally posted by Greenback
Hmm. Red diesel costs 24p a litre, so my heart is not exactly bleeding for the farmers - many of whom, I would imagine, are protesting against the same government that grants them huge subsidies to prop up unsustainable business models.
That's untaxed @ 24p a litre!

Red diesel is hardly taxed at all - it's subsidised by the government to the tune of £250million a year.

Originally posted by Greenback
Red diesel is hardly taxed at all - it's subsidised by the government to the tune of £250million a year.

Fair dinkum, to both of your comments.

But I think this thread is about mass populus being ever-squeezes for money via taxes :rolleyes:

Originally posted by venger
Fair dinkum, to both of your comments.

But I think this thread is about mass populus being ever-squeezes for money via taxes :rolleyes:
True and the fact we shouldn't stand for it anymore.
Unless another solution can be found I think the blockades are our only option at this point.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
True and the fact we shouldn't stand for it anymore.
Unless another solution can be found I think the blockades are our only option at this point.

That would go down so well before a Gen Election :hihi:

Originally posted by venger
That would go down so well before a Gen Election :hihi:
Damn right.
IIRC didn't the people who blockaded the petrol depot's setup a website for support.
Anyone remember what the address might be if there is one, I might drop them an email :suspect:

the thing that gets to me, is that since the tax is %, the higher the fuel prices go the greater the tax that gets taken.

The tax should be set at a monetary value and then adjusted for inflation everyyear. At least that way a 10% increase in oil prices would only amount to a 1.2% in pub prices. And the shortfall of tax wouldn't exist, so no other taxes would need adjusting.

I'm quite happy to see blockades again, and whilst things are being moaned about, why don't the Inland Revenue adjust there limits on what can be claimed back for fuel, it's been fixed for about 3 years now, in which time petrol prices have risen by about 20 or 30 %.

well my opions are.........

where does all the taxed money go??? the take loads in tax on petrol, then uve gotta pay road tax but what for?? isnt it supposed to go 2wards the up keep of britains roads? so why are there so many dodgy roads? pot holes ect?

and if the government are charging high taxes to get people on to publice transport its not work because buses are putting up their fares because of it which puts people off using them neway?

either way sumthing has to be dun about it but i dont agree with the blockades as my fella is a hgv driver n if theres no fuel he doesnt have a job and we will lose everything!

neway we wont have this problem soon because when the oil runs out there'll be none to tax! and as hydrogen cars have already been invented and are being used in some places oil will be a thing of the past sonner or later.

Originally posted by x_LoUiSe_x
well my opions are.........

where does all the taxed money go??? the take loads in tax on petrol, then uve gotta pay road tax but what for?? isnt it supposed to go 2wards the up keep of britains roads? so why are there so many dodgy roads? pot holes ect?

and if the government are charging high taxes to get people on to publice transport its not work because buses are putting up their fares because of it which puts people off using them neway?

either way sumthing has to be dun about it but i dont agree with the blockades as my fella is a hgv driver n if theres no fuel he doesnt have a job and we will lose everything!

neway we wont have this problem soon because when the oil runs out there'll be none to tax! and as hydrogen cars have already been invented and are being used in some places oil will be a thing of the past sonner or later.
I appreciate what you're saying louise but the blockades are reall our only option at this point in time. Lets not forget too that your HGV driver fella may also be out of a job if his haulage company has to make job cuts to cover the loss taken by increased fuel costs. Ever thought of it that way?

HGV companies, farmers and the like are the ones who are all for the blockades (ask your fella). I too am all for them right now... the government should stop taking the michael with the tax on the fuel duty.

Originally posted by DaBouncer


HGV companies, farmers and the like are the ones who are all for the blockades (ask your fella). I too am all for them right now... the government should stop taking the michael with the tax on the fuel duty.

the owners of the businesses yes, but not the average employed drivers! his is the only income in our house and if he loses his job we lose our house!

i know something has to be done but im just hoping theres anuther way!

Originally posted by Snook
I think it at least makes us a little more responsible in this country than others. In America people leave their engine running while doing their shopping, or run the engine for half an hour in winter before they set of for work to warm up the car. Oil isn't something we will always have, and it's good that we have to think about how much we use it.

The only problem I have with the high price, is that public transport is getting so poor that it will soon not be an option to people, which then makes fuel a necessity and the price unrealistic.


Maybe not, but it'd be nice if it worked... which it never will.

Very well said snook. Agree 100%.

And the great thinig is it will eventually work in our favour. Look longer term. American will be screwed in the next 10-15 years, when oil is so expensive and they have no infrastructure to deal with a change of energy. In England we have smaller cars, more energy efficient appliences. You people will be very greatfull when oil is $100 a barrel (already predicted by some), when American cannot cope and the UK can.

But yeah we need better public transport a.s.a.p.

And we do have the ability to reduce taxation if it gets that high to keep the same amount of money coming in and the price of petrol stable.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Just because a car is not currently a necessity (in some areas) doesn't make it right for the government to tax it's public unfairly.

I mean come on 80% of the price we pay is going to the government... for what? Where are our public improvements?
FFS the roads in sheffield alone are all pot holes and nasty so they're not spending it their. First Mainline is the biggest rip of merchant on the streets so it's not being spent there... where is it going?

I'm sorry but it's about time the government realised that they've taken the **** out of us for too long and we wont stand for it. i reckon most of it is going abroad in hand outs, were subsidising to many foreign countries, we should be looking after our own.....and before the do gooders reply , im entitled to my opinion :!:

How many more times are we going through this??

It just aint worth complaining about though. NO ONES LISTENING

Like the good British citizens we are, do the only thing we do best.


ie. LIE DOWN AND TAKE IT !!!!!




END OF.

I beleive it was the Tory party that brought in the fuel escalator and now they are against it? talk about grab a vote.
If you want to argue the point about high tax on fuel then fair enough but if it does not come from this indirect tax it will have to be found somewhere else.
I suppose the goverment could go down the road of abolishing the road tax and putting it on fuel,that way those who do the most miles pay the most.
Either way the chancellor cannot afford to lower the tax.

Originally posted by royjames
I suppose the goverment could go down the road of abolishing the road tax and putting it on fuel,that way those who do the most miles pay the most.


I think that would be the best way of doing it. I don't complain about the amount of tax on petrol, as we who drive are damaging the environment and therefore should pay heavy tax on the petrol. I do object to road tax though, as we have to pay that even if we are hardly using our car and using public transport whenever possible.

Reducing fuel tax would only be a short term vote winning measure as the cost of oil will have to keep rising as demand overtakes supply and high taxation is needed to encourage a hydrogen economy. Personally i think we are adopting the right attitude to discourage the use of the car (unlike US), as sooner or later the cost of fuel will be prohibative. It looks as if the price of oil could spike at around $100 (about $57 now) a barrel in a few years so why not invest in 'black gold' instead - you should well be able to afford the higher prices then!

The reason it is going up is in part due to high expected demand from the US plus the high demand of china and india.
Either way I feel we are looking at prices that will remain high for the forseeable future,I dont think the price of crude will get back to around 40 dollars a barrel again.
The days of cheap crude are done.

Many people assume that the Western economy is built on oil and will be back in the stone age without it.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Solar power, hydroelectricity, wind power, wave power, nuclear power, synthetic fuels, antimatter, ZPE... all are possible alternatives. You can even turn water into fuel by separating the elements it's made of. When the need to develop these technologies outweighs the consequences of continuing to suppress them, it will be done. To a degree it already has been done, but, for the time being, it suits the people in charge to maintain the economic status quo.

I agree royjames - but as the oil price affects all aspects of life I think that the days of cheap goods and cheap air travel are numbered and we will have to accept higher prices as we cannot carry on exploiting natural resources like this without problems in the future.

Originally posted by Lickszz
Many people assume that the Western economy is built on oil and will be back in the stone age without it.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Solar power, hydroelectricity, wind power, wave power, nuclear power, synthetic fuels, antimatter, ZPE... all are possible alternatives. You can even turn water into fuel by separating the elements it's made of. When the need to develop these technologies outweighs the consequences of continuing to suppress them, it will be done. To a degree it already has been done, but, for the time being, it suits the people in charge to maintain the economic status quo.


I agree with those sentiments 100%,sooner or later the west will have to diversify.

It is very easy to blame UK governments past and present for our very high fuel prices. But my belief is that we haven't seen anything yet.
As the general populace of China and india get slowly more wealthy, and who knows africa too in ten years time. The price of petrol may well be 10 times today's price, taking in mind the cost of living and inflation.

We are living in a golden age when the average person can buy a car and drive it about all week for no apparent purpose.

But the future shortages will not hit us as hard as Large countries like America and Australia where they live miles away from anything and have to drive everywhere.

Trouble is it may be too late then to diversify as there is still no real incentive until the price is much higher, and all these other technologies need cheap oil to manufacture (wind turbines etc)and are still not viable on a large scale.

Like I said the days of cheap oil are done,it will only become more scarse.
Its a dwindling supply and the sooner we diversify the better.

Originally posted by Lickszz
Many people assume that the Western economy is built on oil and will be back in the stone age without it.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Solar power, hydroelectricity, wind power, wave power, nuclear power, synthetic fuels, antimatter, ZPE... all are possible alternatives. You can even turn water into fuel by separating the elements it's made of. When the need to develop these technologies outweighs the consequences of continuing to suppress them, it will be done. To a degree it already has been done, but, for the time being, it suits the people in charge to maintain the economic status quo.

Doesnt plastic come from oil though? Is there an alternative (that costs a similar price) we will use? I remember in one of Michael Moores books he had an alarmingly long list of things that require oil! So its not just energy production we need to worry about.

That's the point though there is no viable alternative to oil - we depend on it in almost everything we use to some extent. Lose oil - return to the stone age...

Originally posted by dudu
Trouble is it may be too late then to diversify as there is still no real incentive until the price is much higher, and all these other technologies need cheap oil to manufacture (wind turbines etc)and are still not viable on a large scale.

But for instance when a wind farm is built, its costs are negligible compared with the ongoing expense of finding and extracting increasingly rare oil. I also know that the maintenance cost of a solar panel is zero. The cost of alternative energy sources, like wind power, wave power, solar power, is only in developing and building the machinery - once they're up and running they really are free. And if people still want internal combustion engines, hydrogen from electrolysis will also be virtually free of cost if the electricity used to accomplish it is obtained by those methods. The Earth intercepts enough solar energy in one day to satisfy humanity's needs for 25 years - it's just a matter of developing the means to harness that energy. If all the money spent on weapons were spent instead on developing these technologies, we would all have practically unlimited free power by the time the oil runs out.

Originally posted by royjames
Like I said the days of cheap oil are done,it will only become more scarse.
Its a dwindling supply and the sooner we diversify the better.

Of course it is, it's a non-renewable source... this is why slowly the electricty companies are moving to things like offshore wind turbines etc...

I forgot the figures but if I remember correctly the world doesnt have enough oil to last out the rest of this century... and coal has less than 50 years...

we're polluting the world, we're destroying natural resources that we will need for other things... all for what? because people can't be arsed to move to another city and want to commute from sheffield to leeds every day? cus they can't be arsed to walk for 20mins for a packet of cigs and a loaf of bread from the local shops? :P

I think a poem I wrote a few years ago sum's up exactly whats happening with us:

http://www.xafiers-home.com/poems/evermoving.html

:)

Originally posted by dudu
That's the point though there is no viable alternative to oil - we depend on it in almost everything we use to some extent. Lose oil - return to the stone age...

I don't understand why you think that. The human race managed to survive ok long before oil was discovered and shall continue to survive after all the oil is gone, because it has a million year long tradition of finding novel and clever ways to exploit its environment. New technology and the need for exploitation of power sources which don't deplete the Earth's resources have to be developed.

The government tax the cost of fuel by 80%
No, it's 400% - for every 20p of fuel there is 80p tax.

Originally posted by nightrider
Doesnt plastic come from oil though? Is there an alternative (that costs a similar price) we will use? I remember in one of Michael Moores books he had an alarmingly long list of things that require oil! So its not just energy production we need to worry about.

Yes, we either develop the use of another energy source other than oil, or we die.

Originally posted by PerlOfWisdom
No, it's 400% - for every 20p of fuel there is 80p tax.
Not much wisdom in that pearl is there :roll:
80% of the price we pay is tax which goes to the government. Don't believe me? Ring em and ask.

And the argument that people are throwing about regarding higher petrol costs for environment reasons is ****** and you should know it.
If it were right then more of the money would be visibly used by offering LPG grants to all car owners for a start.
Allowing people to use Red Deisel at 20 odd pence per litre instead of diesel.

The government get too many contributions from oil companies to warrante putting the money recieved from fuel tax into anything else.

We all know what is driving the rising oil prices right now, fine! That still doesn't excuse our government taxing it's public more than any other country in the ****ing world!

Where is that right? Please? If you can afford the high price and don't care.... fine. What about those people who might not have the affordable luxury of the high price yet needs a car to get about because of poor public transport, lack of public transport or lack of amenities for disabled people on public transport?

Let's keep on topic and dicuss the governments taxation please :roll:

there are incentives to convert newer vehicles to lpg.
and red diesel is just diesel with red dye added, so allowing people to use that is nonsense.

every country is taxed differently, to make any fair comparison you need to compare our overall tax burden and the services we receive for that.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Not much wisdom in that pearl is there :roll:
80% of the price we pay is tax which goes to the government. Don't believe me? Ring em and ask.



your seeing it as 80% per £1 of money paid for petrol goes as tax but but perlofwisdom sees it as 80p is 400% of 20p, so ur both right :clap:

neway what does it matter about the figures, the fact is its 2 much! lol

it costs us £30 to go and visit my family 100 miles away and when ur on a tight budget neway its kinda hard!:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Lickszz
I also know that the maintenance cost of a solar panel is zero. once they're up and running they really are free.
Lickss I agree with you about the need for alternataves
but
To convert your house to solar panels is quite an expense, £25k ish. And you need much more than just the panels. Eg, a large metal cabinet in your basement with huge HGV style batteries, which will last up to 5 years before needing replacement £120.00 ? also in there is some switchgear and an inverter to convert to AC and you need a second electricity meter. Which in the summer you bill your electricity company for the excess electricity you have sold them. You have a right job getting the money and have to send reminders and possibly threaten legal action.
When a fault occurs on one of the panels, you will have to pay for scaffolding to get it replaced. At today's prices £300 for the scaffolding? They are not quite maintenence free.

Getting solar heated water is a good option too and they have been offering this since the 1970s. I remember it being on the back of Kellog's Cornflakes. You have a circuit of water which is heated behind special glass in small pipes on the roof. This keeps your hot water cylinder fairly warm all year around.

Diesel, Petrol and LPG are all derived from oil. And converting/preferring one against the other is just shuffling the deckchairs on the decks of the titanic.

The only actual way to go for transportation is Electric or Hydrogen fuel cells, combined with ethically derived electricity generation. And less reliability on personal transport as it becomes less economic.

Despite fuel becoming more expensive over the last decades, it hasn't stopped the explosion of car ownership. Every street is blocked with parked cars, many households having more than one vehicle. In the 1970s when I was a lad, we used to use our street as a large tennis court or football pitch. You couldn't do that anymore the same place looks like a carpark now.

Most people can easily afford to run a large thirsty car.
I fully expect to be priced out of mine in the next ten years.

Originally posted by x_LoUiSe_x
it costs us £30 to go and visit my family 100 miles away and when ur on a tight budget neway its kinda hard!:rolleyes:
Can't you go on the train instead?
I much prefer to go to london on it, it is much quicker than driving and with a cheap ticket I pay about 25%, and I can have a Guinness on the way back !

Originally posted by x_LoUiSe_x
your seeing it as 80% per £1 of money paid for petrol goes as tax but but perlofwisdom sees it as 80p is 400% of 20p, so ur both right :clap:

neway what does it matter about the figures, the fact is its 2 much! lol

it costs us £30 to go and visit my family 100 miles away and when ur on a tight budget neway its kinda hard!:rolleyes:
I'm not seeing anything as 80% of £1... I'm seeing 80% being the actual government figure which is charged as fuel duty according to the BBC :loopy:
So it's 80%, no if's but's or maybe's.

Anyway, we're splitting hairs and either way the cost is too high.

Muddycoffee you kidn of acknowledged my point, you said LPG is derived from oil yet it's promoted as a lot greener fuel so why are government not promoting it more? Why are the government not using this money from the 80% of tax on our fuel to promote hydrogen fueled transport?

The fact is our welfare system is one of the most costly in the world and the government need to recoup that money elsewhere. Rather than say to those who wont work (not those who can't... but who wont), you're not getting a penny... they let them ride the dole queue pony.

So they tax the rest of high to cover stuff like this.
It makes me sooooo angry!

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Muddycoffee you kidn of acknowledged my point, you said LPG is derived from oil yet it's promoted as a lot greener fuel so why are government not promoting it more? Why are the government not using this money from the 80% of tax on our fuel to promote hydrogen fueled transport?
Because the current scientific consensus is that production of LPG is not as environmentally friendly as it was previously thought to be.
I heard about it some time ago, but can't remember the exact thinking behind it, but it may have been something to do with the manufacture of the fuel in the first place.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
I'm not seeing anything as 80% of £1... I'm seeing 80% being the actual government figure which is charged as fuel duty according to the BBC :loopy:
So it's 80%, no if's but's or maybe's.

Anyway, we're splitting hairs and either way the cost is too high.

Muddycoffee you kidn of acknowledged my point, you said LPG is derived from oil yet it's promoted as a lot greener fuel so why are government not promoting it more? Why are the government not using this money from the 80% of tax on our fuel to promote hydrogen fueled transport?

The fact is our welfare system is one of the most costly in the world and the government need to recoup that money elsewhere. Rather than say to those who wont work (not those who can't... but who wont), you're not getting a penny... they let them ride the dole queue pony.

So they tax the rest of high to cover stuff like this.
It makes me sooooo angry!

probably off topic. But I dont understand why we cant make those who wont work do something useful for their dole money. e.g. picking up litter, filling in potholes etc.

Originally posted by muddycoffee
Lickss I agree with you about the need for alternataves
but
To convert your house to solar panels is quite an expense, £25k ish. And you need much more than just the panels. Eg, a large metal cabinet in your basement with huge HGV style batteries, which will last up to 5 years before needing replacement £120.00 ? also in there is some switchgear and an inverter to convert to AC and you need a second electricity meter. Which in the summer you bill your electricity company for the excess electricity you have sold them. You have a right job getting the money and have to send reminders and possibly threaten legal action.
When a fault occurs on one of the panels, you will have to pay for scaffolding to get it replaced. At today's prices £300 for the scaffolding? They are not quite maintenence free.

Getting solar heated water is a good option too and they have been offering this since the 1970s. I remember it being on the back of Kellog's Cornflakes. You have a circuit of water which is heated behind special glass in small pipes on the roof. This keeps your hot water cylinder fairly warm all year around.

All this is technology that would obviously have to be developed and improved, which could be done. Oil of course isn't exactly cheap to extract, refine and transport.

As I said the emphasis needs to be to develop technology that can exploit power sources which don't deplete the Earth's resources. Fossil fuels can't be renewed in a reasonable time, so we have to find something else to use. Renewable sources such as wood can't satisfy our requirements and would eventually choke us to death even if they could. That means we need something that won't be depleted, and if it's expensive to develop the means, so be it, we have no choice.

Nuclear power is viable if it can be done safely, but not in the extreme long-term, because it depends on a non-renewable resource, and isn't much more efficient than present solar technology anyway.

For me the obvious long-term choice is solar energy. The sun puts out more energy in one second that the human race has used in its entire history, and it's going to carry on doing that for billions of years whether we use it or not. At 100% efficiency, the world's current energy requirements could be satisfied by laying a several mile wide strip of solar panels all the way around the equator. Of course, they're not 100% efficient and never will be, and you'd actually need to cover a few percent of the Earth's surface, which would possibly have a serious effect on the climate. Another obvious problem with that is that people live there. However, there's no special need to put them on the surface, or even anywhere near the Earth. They could in theory be put on a spacecraft in orbit around the Sun and have them beam the energy to Earth at whatever frequencies you happen to want. It wouldn't matter how inefficient they were because we're talking about making available any amount of the Sun's output that we want - not just the tiny fraction that is intercepted by the Earth.

Before anyone requests me to explain how we get millions of solar power stations into space, if I knew that I'd be earning a crust at NASA or somewhere similar. But my point is, these things are possible in principle, and either the use of some energy source other than oil is developed, or as I said we die. It's really that simple.

Not much wisdom in that pearl is there
80% of the price we pay is tax which goes to the government. Don't believe me? Ring em and ask.

Tax is never worked out that way.

Look at VAT - The original cost of something is £100, the tax is £17.50, the total is £117.50 (17.5%)

With petrol - The original cost of (some) petrol is 20p, the tax is 80p, the total is £1.00 (400%)

You are both a bit right, but the excise duty on petrol is not allocated as a percentage but as a fixed amount per litre.
When the raw cost of fuel goes up the excise duty does not automatically go up as a percentage.
What does go up is the total of VAT @ 17.5% that you pay as a percentage on top of the total cost.

It does mean to say that the only meaningful way to talk about the duty element of fuel costs is either as a fixed amount or as a percentage of the total cost.
In reality, if the base cost increases and there is no increase in excise duty, the proportion (percentage) of the total customer price that is made up of excise duty will fall.

For example the duties applied were listed on the Customs and Excise website here (http://www.hmce.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_InfoGuides&propertyType=document&id=HMCE_PROD_009533) (but I believe are out of date now):

Ultra-low sulphur petrol (ULSP)............................47.10 pence/ litre
Unleaded petrol which is not ULSP........................50.19
Ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD).............................47.10
Heavy oil which is not ULSD (ie conventional diesel)......53.27

Originally posted by Lickszz
They could in theory be put on a spacecraft in orbit around the Sun and have them beam the energy to Earth at whatever frequencies you happen to want.
Lickszz,
beaming power through space is unfortunately well in to the realms of science fiction, like Teleportation.

If you have a farely new Diesel car it costs around £500 to have it adjusted so that it can run on biodeisel. In Germany this fuel is available widely at most petrol stations and is just everyday rape seed oil.

To add to cgksheff's list
duty rate for biodiesel was introduced at 20 pence per litre below the rate for ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD)
so that's very cheap at 27.10p per litre !

-but-
If you were to go to Netto you can buy larger quantities of rape seed oil at a good price and avoid the fuel tax at all. Obviously you would be braking the law. But wouldn't it be cheap!

Originally posted by muddycoffee
Can't you go on the train instead?
I much prefer to go to london on it, it is much quicker than driving and with a cheap ticket I pay about 25%, and I can have a Guinness on the way back !

have u tried going on a train with a baby, a pushchair, a travel cot and lots of bags? its far easier (if more expensive) to go in the car!

Originally posted by muddycoffee
Lickszz,
beaming power through space is unfortunately well in to the realms of science fiction, like Teleportation.

teleportation isnt science fiction though. Last time I checked scientists were successfully teleporting (if you defined this as destroying it in one place and it reappearing simultaeously elsewhere) molecules with up to 60 atoms quite well. The only question is how far this can be scaled up.

See IBMS website for the basics:

http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/

as for beaming power through space surely all you need is say a microwave transmitter and receiver? If we really put the money into research it could be done I am sure.

beaming power through space is as easy as ... shining a torch.

Unfortunately beaming it through an atmosphere is considerably more difficult.

Originally posted by Cyclone
beaming power through space is as easy as ... shining a torch.

you're forgetting the fact that the light from your torch already 'beams through space' in the form of sunlight!!! so capturing it from a point in orbit and sending it down to a station on the earth will give you absolutely nothing, and you would lose energy in the process.

the only advantage of having a solar panel in space is that you can have a huge one without the space (room) and environmental implications of having a huge one on earth! the solar energy that you harness has to be converted in to a transportable, solid state that can be moved i.e. by charging a battery. These batteries then can be transported down to earth for our consumption: but how do we physically get them down? By the space shuttle? or an arthur clarke-esque space elevator? how much energy do you think it takes to put a shuttle into space? and at an estimated cost of $20,000 per kg, very expensive too! basically, by the time you've collected your energy from space and brought it down, gone back up to get the next lot of batteries, come back down, etc... you've used a massive amount of energy and gained very little.

to summarise, you can't 'beam' energy through the atmosphere to earth efficiently with any terrestrial device and without expending energy in the process; the Sun is the most powerful thing we have to do this - it's a matter of harnessing this energy in the most efficient way possible on earth!

and microwave transmitters and receivers are used for microwave signals not transferring power!!! i.e. communicating with satellites, studying space. and yes they are used for cooking but how do you expect to generate the microwaves in the first place like your microwave oven does? by using electricity of course, which comes from non-renewable fossil fuels!

Yes. Microwaves.

Read about it here (http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/factsheets/l123.html) .

The quicker the hydrogen fuel cell is commercialised the better, the only by product is water, which would be very good for the environment, and it would end our reliance on the middle east for oil, it would also send the middle east back to where they were before the discovery of oil, no bad thing eh!

I think you're suffering from a failure of imagination.

Firstly, who said it had to be something in earth orbit. Put a huge focussing mirror or bank of solar panels in there own indepndant orbit.

I was being a little pedantic with the beam of visible light. But you fail to grasp the point. The sun may be giving out a hell of a lot of light. But there's nothing to stop us collecting a portion of it (via cells or mirrors) and focusing that. The amount of energy in that focussed beam is then far higher than the amount in unfocussed sunlight. This can be beam through space for any distance without noticeable attenuation.
Of course we wouldn't want to focus a huge beam of light on the earth as most of the energy would be lost to heating up our atmosphere and the ground, not the ideal way of capturing energy.

If you have a space elevator (i nearly suggested this in my first post), you clearly don't have to transport batteries up and down it. You beam the energy in whatever form you like to the top of the elevator, it's converted into electricity there and goes down the elevator in cables. You do remember that we manage to transport electricity all over the country without running around with batteries?

Microwave trasmitters and receivers are perfectly capable of being used to trasnfer energy, they aren't ideal though as microwaves are absorbed by all sorts of things, so the energy is attenuated and wasted heating up the atmosphere.

The microwave in this case though would be generated by electricity which would have been captured by our solar cells in orbit. Not using a fossil fuel. Microwave would probably be the best choice for beaming the energy from an independantly orbiting energy collector station to the receivers on the sky hook.

Think outside the box man.

Originally posted by Leebo84
you're forgetting the fact that the light from your torch already 'beams through space' in the form of sunlight!!! so capturing it from a point in orbit and sending it down to a station on the earth will give you absolutely nothing, and you would lose energy in the process.

the only advantage of having a solar panel in space is that you can have a huge one without the space (room) and environmental implications of having a huge one on earth! the solar energy that you harness has to be converted in to a transportable, solid state that can be moved i.e. by charging a battery. These batteries then can be transported down to earth for our consumption: but how do we physically get them down? By the space shuttle? or an arthur clarke-esque space elevator? how much energy do you think it takes to put a shuttle into space? and at an estimated cost of $20,000 per kg, very expensive too! basically, by the time you've collected your energy from space and brought it down, gone back up to get the next lot of batteries, come back down, etc... you've used a massive amount of energy and gained very little.

to summarise, you can't 'beam' energy through the atmosphere to earth efficiently with any terrestrial device and without expending energy in the process; the Sun is the most powerful thing we have to do this - it's a matter of harnessing this energy in the most efficient way possible on earth!

and microwave transmitters and receivers are used for microwave signals not transferring power!!! i.e. communicating with satellites, studying space. and yes they are used for cooking but how do you expect to generate the microwaves in the first place like your microwave oven does? by using electricity of course, which comes from non-renewable fossil fuels!

Originally posted by little malc
The quicker the hydrogen fuel cell is commercialised the better, the only by product is water, which would be very good for the environment, and it would end our reliance on the middle east for oil, it would also send the middle east back to where they were before the discovery of oil, no bad thing eh!

yes, because we can just magically produce hydrogen from our backsides... oh wait, that's just methane.

Originally posted by Leebo84
you're forgetting the fact that the light from your torch already 'beams through space' in the form of sunlight!!! so capturing it from a point in orbit and sending it down to a station on the earth will give you absolutely nothing, and you would lose energy in the process.

the only advantage of having a solar panel in space is that you can have a huge one without the space (room) and environmental implications of having a huge one on earth! the solar energy that you harness has to be converted in to a transportable, solid state that can be moved i.e. by charging a battery. These batteries then can be transported down to earth for our consumption: but how do we physically get them down? By the space shuttle? or an arthur clarke-esque space elevator? how much energy do you think it takes to put a shuttle into space? and at an estimated cost of $20,000 per kg, very expensive too! basically, by the time you've collected your energy from space and brought it down, gone back up to get the next lot of batteries, come back down, etc... you've used a massive amount of energy and gained very little.

to summarise, you can't 'beam' energy through the atmosphere to earth efficiently with any terrestrial device and without expending energy in the process; the Sun is the most powerful thing we have to do this - it's a matter of harnessing this energy in the most efficient way possible on earth!

and microwave transmitters and receivers are used for microwave signals not transferring power!!! i.e. communicating with satellites, studying space. and yes they are used for cooking but how do you expect to generate the microwaves in the first place like your microwave oven does? by using electricity of course, which comes from non-renewable fossil fuels!

too much doom and gloom here I think. It might cost 20k now per kg, but once space becomes more commercial prices will drop a lot surely? And we do slowly seem to be edging away from goverment dominated space (eg the xprize and the virgin thing). It could happen, it just takes people with the right vision and obsession to make it happen.

I might be concerned that if we put solar panels everywhere the earth is not heated enough since we are pinching all the sunlight (or maybe this effect is so small it is irrelevant?) and that might do something nasty.

Blockades are not the answer, after a while (about the time to empty the tank of fuel you had before the blockades :D ) it annoys the people it is meant to help.

Last time somebody mentioned a "No filling up" day. Again no good. Everybody went the day before or knew they could last until the day after.

The only option I heard the last time that could work but would need everybody to stick to it was to boycott the 2 biggest petrol companies (Shell and BP ????? ). Everybody could still get there fuel and the 2 companies would lean on the goverment for us.....

I do believe this is being depressed price wise until the elections are over - I wouldn't be surprise if it break the £1 a litre barrer before the year is out.

This is an interesting article as a solution to cheaper oil
http://www.realdemocracy.com/cheapoil.htm

Prices being depressed before the election? How & by who?

Prices have come down to about $50 a barrel from $57 a barrel earlier in the month.

i think there will be more fuel protest's if the pump price go's up any further :clap: :clap: :clap:

fuel forum (http://www.fuelforum.co.uk/index.shtml)

The Fuel Forum website doesn't appear to be very up to date.

It's latest news update is 2nd August 2004 - so they aren't doing much of a job are they.

Originally posted by Longcol
Prices being depressed before the election? How & by who?


This is of my own opinion based on what I see going on…

Originally posted by Longcol
Prices have come down to about $50 a barrel from $57 a barrel earlier in the month.

Quote taken from an Article from this source

SINGAPORE, Apr 15, 2005 (AP Online via COMTEX) --

Oil prices are roughly around 35 percent higher than a year ago despite a 14 percent dip in Nymex crude futures since reaching an intraday high above $58 a barrel last Monday - after the Paris-based International Energy Agency forecast slower demand growth in 2005.


Even at 35% have the cost been passed on yet?

Originally posted by muddycoffee
If you have a farely new Diesel car it costs around £500 to have it adjusted so that it can run on biodeisel. In Germany this fuel is available widely at most petrol stations and is just everyday rape seed oil.


Properly made Biodiesel can be used for fuel in any diesel engine without modifications of any kind!
Taken from http://www.eugeneweb.com/~bios/biod.htm

From what I remember the only thing it does if it not "properly made" is that strips the plastic tubing carrying the fuel and it will eventually cause a leak if used constantly over a long peroid of time. I'm sure someone will put me right.

Can you tell me what this £500 modification entail?

Anyway, Sheffield has its own biofuel company.
http://www.booler-biofuel.o-f.com/who%20we%20are.htm
http://www.booler-biofuel.o-f.com/product.htm

You can bet your bottom dollar the oil companies increase the pump price as soon as the price of oil goes up - don't think they bring it so quick when oil prices fall - hence record profits announced by some oil companies recently.

Originally posted by John

Can you tell me what this £500 modification entail?
Hi John, I was told this when I was in Germany last month. It is what the people in that region pay typically. As the people I was with were not technical, they couldn't tell me anything about the procedure, other than they were going to do it on their new car when they bought one, and it wasn't worth doing it on their current decade old car.